Analysts: President Obama's no 'game changer' in Syria

The aid may be just enough to preserve the president’s international credibility. | Reuters

Rhodes stressed that “a political settlement is still the preferable outcome” and he seemed to acknowledge that the U.S. aid was unlikely to bring the Assad regime closer to military defeat. “Tragically, I’m sure we’ll be dealing with Syria in the days and weeks to come,” he said.

In addition to providing some consequence for Obama’s public promise to take action if the Syrian regime crossed what he called a “red line” by using chemical weapons, the policy shift announced by the White House Thursday may have some diplomatic benefits: It will bring the U.S. position closer to that of countries like Britain and France — which, say Cordesman, have been the source of “a lot of pressure” on the issue — in advance of G-8 meetings Obama is to attend next week that will put him side by side with his European counterparts.

Text Size

-

+

reset

In fact, the Obama administration has been facing pressure from all quarters on Syria.

While some Republicans pressed for greater action, GOP leaders have generally criticized Obama without endorsing or even outlining steps toward greater intervention almost certain to be wildly unpopular with the war-weary American public.

“It’s increasingly clear that the president does not have a coherent plan to manage the growing strategic catastrophe” in Syria, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement Thursday night.

Even former President Bill Clinton has sounded a critical note on the situation, suggesting earlier this week that the White House needs to act more assertively.

And so the administration’s announcement is “partly about saving face,” Hamid said. “It was getting embarrassing. … At some point, you have to do something to overcome those perceptions.”

Another administration hope is that mere talk of greater U.S. military aid could bolster and unify the political elements of the Syrian opposition and might increase the willingness of the Assad regime to give some ground at talks intended to find a political resolution to the fighting. Those discussions, sponsored by the U.S. and Russia, were planned to begin in Geneva last month, but are now not expected to take place until July at the earliest.

Experts said the skittish White House remains highly unlikely to give the rebels sophisticated anti-tank weapons or anti-aircraft missiles that could fall into the hands of Islamist militants or end up on the black market. Short of that kind of weaponry, the only action that might significantly impede the Assad regime militarily would be a no-fly zone.

Rhodes didn’t rule that out Thursday, but he described it as far more costly and complicated than many expect. And even that dramatic an intervention might not tip the balance definitively against the regime, he said.